Following a minor character from Zack Snyder’s recent zombie flick seems like an odd choice for a prequel movie until you remember how much fun Matthias Schweighöfer was onscreen as the eccentric safecracker.
Zack Snyder’s Army of the Dead marked a return to his zombie roots, and while there’s plenty to enjoy and lambast in that film, the one surprise was how well Dieter (Matthias Schweighöfer) worked on screen. He bounced off Omari Hardwick’s tough guy routine well, as the both of them crafted a fantastic bromance, developing a begrudgingly, and later emphatic respect towards one another. But unfortunately, that relationship is short lived
**Spoiler Alert**
If you haven’t seen that film, you’ll need to skip this review for now since Army of Thieves serves as a prequel to the events in that film. Dieter ends up sacrificing himself to ensure Hardwick’s character Vanderohe survives (which ends up as a pretty hollow moment when we later learn Vanderohe’s been infected) and that would mark the end for our fan-favorite safecracker. From the production info I’ve seen, it seems that this film was conceived even before Army of the Dead released this past May. So, while he was a fan favorite, it seems the Snyder production team already thought he would play well to audiences, and that it wasn’t just fan reaction that drove the creation of this flick.
A Different Sort of Prequel
The most obvious thing that stands out about this film is how much more it relies on heist tropes than the first film. If Dead was a zombie movie that happened to have a heist plot, then Thieves is much more of a heist movie tangentially set during a zombie apocalypse. Or think of it this way: saying there are zombies in this film is like saying there are bats in a Batman movie. Sure, we are going to see some in a cave, but there inconsequential to the plot. At this point in the two-movie chronology, the outbreak had just occurred in Las Vegas, so the rest of the world, while definitely concerned about that issue, is basically business as usual.
The movie tries to make it seem important in two ways: the first being dreams that Dieter has interacting with zombies, which is foreshadowing his doom. My main argument is that they only work if you’ve watched the first film, and even then, having them here doesn’t really work. Why do we care that he’s having nightmares about zombies when they have zero effect on this plot?
Secondly, they are stating that our plucky team of thieves wants to pull off the heist due to everyone being distracted…but that’s in conflict with evidence from the team itself and what we see on-screen. The heist team’s reasoning is due to the safes being slated for decommissioning and as we see in each heist, the world doesn’t seem that bothered by the impending apocalypse. So again, this prequel seems desperate to justify it’s tie in status while also peppering in easter eggs at the expense of narrative cohesion.
Those pale in comparison to the odd impending doom message they keep hounding Dieter with. In Dead, they had Hardwick’s character Vanderohe pontificate about the possibility of them being in hell, doomed to repeat their journey to Vegas over and over. Which…seemed really weird and the screenplay never pays that idea off. For this film to double down on that one thread by having the team’s computer hacker scare Dieter about his existence (signaling his impending doom) reeks of another subtle desperation to make this film connect when it doesn’t have to.
Which is truly a shame, because everything else about this is pretty enjoyable. We are treated to a brisk, but solidly developed, world surrounding safe cracking which sounds ridiculous, but works fine within heist movie logic. Look, if the Ocean 11 movies can have varying circles of thieves and supporting skills specialists interacting with each other, then I can buy a niche community of safecrackers trying to one up or best each other.
Most of the heists aren’t going to blow you away, as we’ve seen better crafted moments in many of this heist film’s predecessors. I will argue that the final heist is very solid as it puts together several elements you’re used to seeing in a fresh way. The only slow or unrefined part of each heist is when Dieter actually cracks the safe. Sure, as audience members we are intrigued with him and his mannerisms as he goes through his motions, but much of the excitement wears off with each subsequent lock spin. Perhaps we could have been more invested in his work if we knew exactly what he was doing, but our main character just spins the dial and we are treated to a mix of CGI locks moving or not moving if he’s messed up, and that simply doesn’t generate enough tension.
The rest of the time, this movie is focused on Dieter (who goes by Sebastian for most of this film, we later learn he changed his name to enter the US) as he grows closer to his heist team, but particularly with Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel), as they both share a love of safecracking and are fans of the fictional safe inventor in the movie who’s crafted three immaculate safes as his magnum opus. Emmanuel, who’s no stranger to heist movies as she’s been a regular cast member in the Fast and Furious franchise, shines very well in her role as the team organizer, and honestly gets to do way more in this film than any of her jaunts in the Furious franchise.
Schweighöfer and Emmanuel spend the most time on screen and their pairing works well, though I felt the romantic subplot was forced, and undercut the fun they had together as Dieter stresses out Gwendoline due to the slow nature of his work as the dynamics of each heist demand more and more speed from him.
If you’ve seen how awkward and under prepared Dieter was for the heist life in the first film, expect much more of the same here. His awkwardness works well as a catalyst to explain things naturally in-universe without slowing things down for the audiences. In Dead, he wasn’t familiar with how killing zombies worked so he asked a simple question and then Dave Bautista’s character explained for him and the audience. In Thieves, Dieter serves the same purpose as his inexperience demands that the team slow down and explain what’s going to happen.
This structure works very well and I’d argue if you’ve never seen a heist film before, this wouldn’t be a bad introduction. It gives you familiar heist breakdowns of what’s going to happen and plays well on established tropes by moving or shifting where parts of the heist have or haven’t happened yet. Even heist cinema lovers will be able to find some charming moments in what the filmmakers innovate on here or be surprised in how they execute the basics.
Conclusion
Army of Thieves won’t do anything spectacular for heist fans or move the Army of the Dead series further, but it’s a fun romp with a familiar breakout character that will certainly satisfy its intended audience.
Score: 7 out of 10